David Russell wrote
It's not as if it is a brand
new guideline that may be under dispute or unknown - WP:CITE has been
around since 2002, if some editors decided to ignore it then it's no
surprise that others objected to their work being elevated to GA status.
This ignores the actual history and debate around most policies: 'you mean we have to
do A?'; 'No no, dear boy, it's just to stop B. I mean look at X and what has
happened to the articles in contentious area P that you never look at.' 'I see, so
I just get on and occasionally try and upgrade a few older articles that really do need
help.' 'Just so, dear boy, and your fear that we shall all be writing limping
prose spattered with footnotes is quite unfounded.'
So one turns one's back and gets on with the actual business of adding one of many
thousand pages that will turn a red link blue. Only to find that suddenly filling a
much-needed gap in the references is somehow an issue.
Anyone here see a slight contradiction between having 100K featured articles, and having
pedants running riot demanding citations we can reasonably do without?
Charles
-----------------------------------------
Email sent from
www.ntlworld.com
Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software
Visit
www.ntlworld.com/security for more information